Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the RCE filed on 9/17/2025.
Claims 1, 5-10, 12, 13, 17 and 20 are currently amended.
Claims 2-4, 11, 14-16, 18, 19 were previously presented.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application AFTER FINAL rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the FINALITY of the previous Office Action has been WITHDRAWN pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/17/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 17 and 20 recite the limitations “…the one or more consolidated audit trail processors being implemented in a unified computing environment…”. However, the Applicant’s originally filed specification does not disclose this limitation “…the one or more consolidated audit trail processors being implemented in a unified computing environment…”. Thus, for at least one of the reasons above, the limitations above of claims 1, 17 and 20 are not supported by the originally filed specification and are considered new matter. The specification does not demonstrate possession by indicating and/or describing where the above subject matter may be found, the claims are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Therefore, claims 1, 17 and 20 are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations “…the one or more consolidated audit trail processors being implemented in a unified computing environment…” would include that the processors are all contained within a single computer or network.
Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-19 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claims 1, 17 and 20 and are rejected accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a system, which is a process, machine, manufacturer or composition of matter and thus statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “…obtaining from a consolidated audit trail reporter a plurality of orders, generating, based on the obtained plurality of orders, a lifecycle matrix that includes linkage information that establishes a parent-child relationship between each order of the plurality of orders, generating, based on the lifecycle matrix, an order lifecycle of related orders from the plurality of orders…”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions (including business relations, i.e. generating an order lifecycle of orders based on the relationship between orders) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed system of a non-transitory memory and a network connection that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…obtaining… a plurality of orders, recording… the lifecycle matrix”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The one or more hardware consolidated audit trail processors are further recited at a high level of generality and its broadest reasonable interpretation that are all implemented or contained within a unified computing environment to simply perform the functions of “…generating…a lifecycle matrix of the orders, generating… an order lifecycle of the orders based on the lifecycle matrix, and outputting… a reporting of the order lifecycle”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, the limitations “obtaining a plurality of orders”, “recording the lifecycle matrix” and “outputting the lifecycle matrix”, which are considered to simply employ generic computing components to perform insignificant extra-solution activity as they amount to mere data gathering, storing information and output (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the non-transitory memory, the one or more hardware consolidated audit trail processors and the network connection that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…obtaining…a plurality of orders, generating… a lifecycle matrix of orders, recording … the lifecycle matrix, generating… an order lifecycle of orders, and outputting …a reporting including the order lifecycle”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. In addition, the limitations “obtaining a plurality of orders”, “recording the lifecycle matrix” and “outputting the lifecycle matrix” are generic computing components to perform insignificant extra-solution activity. With respect to the claim elements determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, these elements are similar to at least the following concepts determined by the courts to be insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(d)):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014));
Storing and retrieving information in memory, see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 17 and 20 are rejected based on the same reasoning in claim 1. Thus, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-19 are dependent on claims 1, 17 and 20. Therefore, the dependent claims 2-16 and 18-19 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1, 17 and 20. The dependent claims 2-16 and 18-19 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the one or more consolidated audit trail processors include in the dependent claims 5-10 and 13 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “verifying…the order lifecycle is valid…” (claim 5); “signaling… an error in the order lifecycle…” (claim 6); receiving… event data, determining… linkages of the additional orders, and updating …the order lifecycle to include the additional orders…” (claim 7); receiving… the event data …by performing… a graph walk to determine the additional orders (claim 8); identifying… each order of the order lifecycle and updating… the bloom filter...(claim 9); creating…a new entry in the bloom filter…(claim 10); detecting… a linkage error in the lifecycle matrix; and generating… an error report (claim 13), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-16 and 18-19 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the one or more consolidated audit trail processors include in the dependent claims 5-10 and 13 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “verifying…the order lifecycle is valid…” (claim 5); “signaling… an error in the order lifecycle…” (claim 6); receiving… event data, determining… linkages of the additional orders, and updating …the order lifecycle to include the additional orders…” (claim 7); receiving… the event data …by performing… a graph walk to determine the additional orders (claim 8); identifying… each order of the order lifecycle and updating… the bloom filter...(claim 9); creating…a new entry in the bloom filter…(claim 10); detecting… a linkage error in the lifecycle matrix; and generating… an error report (claim 13), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 2-16 and 18-19 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
New Claims Objection and New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, first paragraph
The new claims rejections under the 35 USC § 112, first paragraph of claims 1, 17 and 20 have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The updated rejections of claims 1-20 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant argued that: “…The outstanding Office Action’s failure to address the claims as a whole and in the context of the specification during Step 2A Prong 1 simply amounts to insufficient analysis under controlling Federal Circuit jurisprudence to determine the presence of a judicial exception and therefore the performance of the subsequent Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B analysis, and therefore the ultimate rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, is improper…” (Please see the Applicant’s remarks on pages 8-9).
Answer 1: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the Office has explained above that claim 1 recites the limitations of “…obtaining from a consolidated audit trail reporter a plurality of orders, generating, based on the obtained plurality of orders, a lifecycle matrix that includes linkage information that establishes a parent-child relationship between each order of the plurality of orders, generating, based on the lifecycle matrix, an order lifecycle of related orders from the plurality of orders…”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions (including business relations, i.e. generating an order lifecycle of orders based on the relationship between orders) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed system of a non-transitory memory and a network connection that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…obtaining… a plurality of orders, recording… the lifecycle matrix”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The one or more hardware consolidated audit trail processors are further recited at a high level of generality and its broadest reasonable interpretation that are all implemented or contained within a unified computing environment to simply perform the functions of “…generating…a lifecycle matrix of the orders, generating… an order lifecycle of the orders based on the lifecycle matrix, and outputting… a reporting of the order lifecycle”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, the limitations “obtaining a plurality of orders”, “recording the lifecycle matrix” and “outputting the lifecycle matrix”, which are considered to simply employ generic computing components to perform insignificant extra-solution activity as they amount to mere data gathering, storing information and output (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the non-transitory memory, the one or more hardware consolidated audit trail processors and the network connection that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…obtaining…a plurality of orders, generating… a lifecycle matrix of orders, recording … the lifecycle matrix, generating… an order lifecycle of orders, and outputting …a reporting including the order lifecycle”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. In addition, the limitations “obtaining a plurality of orders”, “recording the lifecycle matrix” and “outputting the lifecycle matrix” are generic computing components to perform insignificant extra-solution activity. With respect to the claim elements determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, these elements are similar to at least the following concepts determined by the courts to be insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(d)): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); Storing and retrieving information in memory, see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, the MPEP 2106.04(a) states that: “…Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One”. Thus, according to the MPEP 2106.04(a), Examiner (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) (…obtaining from a consolidated audit trail reporter a plurality of orders, generating, based on the obtained plurality of orders, a lifecycle matrix that includes linkage information that establishes a parent-child relationship between each order of the plurality of orders, generating, based on the lifecycle matrix, an order lifecycle of related orders from the plurality of orders…) in the Applicant’s claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) (…obtaining from a consolidated audit trail reporter a plurality of orders, generating, based on the obtained plurality of orders, a lifecycle matrix that includes linkage information that establishes a parent-child relationship between each order of the plurality of orders, generating, based on the lifecycle matrix, an order lifecycle of related orders from the plurality of orders…) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas of “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity: commercial or legal interactions (including business relations, i.e. generating an order lifecycle of orders based on the relationship between orders). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Therefore, for at least one of the reasons above, the outstanding Office Action addresses the claim as a whole during Step 2A Prong 1, Prong 2 and Step 2B analysis, and therefore the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is proper (Please see the Applicant’s remarks on pages 8-9). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 2: Applicant argued that: “…Applicant submits that not only are these features distinct from the performance of a mental process, but recite a plurality of specific, non-generic, computer hardware configured to implement the system…Therefore, independent Claims 1, 17 and 20 cannot be understood to recite a series of steps performable entirely in the mind or otherwise directed to an abstract idea…” (Please see the Applicant’s remarks on pages 9-11).
Answer 2: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed system of a non-transitory memory and a network connection that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…obtaining… a plurality of orders, recording… the lifecycle matrix”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The one or more hardware consolidated audit trail processors are further recited at a high level of generality and its broadest reasonable interpretation that are all implemented or contained within a unified computing environment to simply perform the functions of “…generating…a lifecycle matrix of the orders, generating… an order lifecycle of the orders based on the lifecycle matrix, and outputting… a reporting of the order lifecycle”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, the limitations “obtaining a plurality of orders”, “recording the lifecycle matrix” and “outputting the lifecycle matrix”, which are considered to simply employ generic computing components to perform insignificant extra-solution activity as they amount to mere data gathering, storing information and output (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the non-transitory memory, the one or more hardware consolidated audit trail processors and the network connection that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…obtaining…a plurality of orders, generating… a lifecycle matrix of orders, recording … the lifecycle matrix, generating… an order lifecycle of orders, and outputting …a reporting including the order lifecycle”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. In addition, the limitations “obtaining a plurality of orders”, “recording the lifecycle matrix” and “outputting the lifecycle matrix” are generic computing components to perform insignificant extra-solution activity. With respect to the claim elements determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, these elements are similar to at least the following concepts determined by the courts to be insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(d)): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); Storing and retrieving information in memory, see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Furthermore, the Applicant’s originally filed specification does not disclose these limitations “…the one or more consolidated audit trail processors being implemented in a unified computing environment…”. The Applicant’s originally filed specification does not disclose or explain how the one or more consolidated audit trail processors being implemented in a unified computing environment. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation would include that the processors are all contained within a single computer or network. Thus, the additional limitations of the non-transitory memory, the one or more hardware consolidated audit trail processors and the network connection that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…obtaining…a plurality of orders, generating… a lifecycle matrix of orders, recording … the lifecycle matrix, generating… an order lifecycle of orders, and outputting …a reporting including the order lifecycle”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, for at least one of the reasons above, the claim does not recite a plurality of specific, non-generic, computer hardware configured to implement the system and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 3: Applicant argued that: “…even if the Office were to understand the alleged judicial exception as being unintegrated from a practical application, Applicant respectfully submits that the independent claims as presently amended recite significantly more than the alleged judicial exception under Step 2B of Alice… Applicant respectfully submits that the collection, processing, and storage of each respective parent- child relationship in a lifecycle matrix, in a single unified computing environment, amounts to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception of collecting and comparing order data…” (Please see the remark on page 11).
Answer 3: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the non-transitory memory, the one or more hardware consolidated audit trail processors and the network connection that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…obtaining…a plurality of orders, generating… a lifecycle matrix of orders, recording … the lifecycle matrix, generating… an order lifecycle of orders, and outputting …a reporting including the order lifecycle”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Furthermore, as the Applicant pointed out above “…the collection, processing, and storage of each respective parent- child relationship in a lifecycle matrix, in a single unified computing environment”, which Applicant does not point to claim limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea but instead merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. The functions “…the collection, processing, and storage of each respective parent- child relationship in a lifecycle matrix, in a single unified computing environment” do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Rather, these functions are improvements in business/financial solution of processing, generating and outputting the order lifecycles for the orders to “improve the ability of the SEC and the SROs to oversee trading in U.S. securities markets, allowing broker-dealers to review their submitted data and provide the ability of the reporters to mine the data for business intelligence”. This is also one of the business/financial solution that Applicant’s invention tried to solve (please see the Applicant’s specification on pages 1-2).
For the above reasons, it is believed that Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the rejections should be sustained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIEN C. NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694